Of chicks and whales

[Guest guest]

I am disappointed that there wasn't more discussion

on this link that Winnie sent out; say, compared to the

outrage over the PETA whales billboard.

 

I didn't like that billboard. I think PETA does more harm

to the cause than good, with their juvenile antics and

" any publicity is good publicity " approach.

 

But lets put things in perspective here.

 

We're talking about 115,000 cute, cuddly little baby chicks

*ground up* alive _each and every day_ .

Think about it.

 

Please forward this to your friends and relatives.

Are you on Facebook/Twitter/Orkut/whatever ? Post a link

to this story! Spread the word, people!

 

Thanks,

Ajay

 

On 09/01/2009 06:34 PM, sunny_outdoors wrote:

> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/pets/detail?entry_id=46679 & tsp=1

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the idea, Ajay. I posted this on facebook and will be sending it out

as an e-mail, too. Amazing how many comments have been posted on the article

.... more than 200 at SFGATE.COM. I was heartened that a lot of people are

writing how terribly wrong this is, that the adorable little chicks are ground

up, and they are asking how this can be stopped. (The easy answer is ... stop

eating eggs! But they have not reached that point yet.) A lot of the people are

wondering how we can take care of the male chicks so they don't have to be

killed like this; they really seem to care. So I think this article is a really

good thing to open people's eyes and get them thinking.

 

About PETA's Save the Whales billboard ... I didn't understand the slogan " Save

the Whales. " Going vegan to get skinny doesn't really do anything for the " save

the whales " campaign since most people in the U.S. don't eat whales anyway. And

if we're trying to save the people derisively called whales (for being

overweight) by telling them to go vegan, then we're not saving the whales, we're

eliminating them, right, because after they supposedly go vegan and go skinny,

they won't be " whales " anymore. To me, " Save the Whales " (if it's whales

meaning fat people) sounds like a campaign to encourage the rights of fat people

to sun themselves on beaches and live as " whales " without insults or prejudice

from anyone. That would be a campaign I'd support, but that's not what PETA

intended. No matter how you look at it, there was a mismatch between the slogan

and what PETA was trying to say.

 

If PETA wants to use this type of campaign, maybe something like " Go Skinny, Go

Vegan, " would make more sense.

 

NOTE: I realize you don't necessarily go skinny if you go vegan. But PETA seems

to be using this as a marketing ploy, and I don't think it is any less true

(probably is more true) than other ads we've seen such as " Milk it Does a Body

Good. " Some people go skinny when they go vegan, some people stay the same, and

some people get fatter. From what I've seen, if it worked for some people, and

it sells the product, that's what generally goes into the advertising. So I

don't have a problem with promoting veganism as a way to go skinny. It won't

work for everybody, but it will convince some people to try vegan foods and

consume fewer animal products; even if they don't get skinny, some of the

dieting hopefuls will become vegan and that's a big accomplishment.

 

Take care,

Rachel D.

San Francisco

 

 

 

, Ajay Boots <ajayboots wrote:

>

> I am disappointed that there wasn't more discussion

> on this link that Winnie sent out; say, compared to the

> outrage over the PETA whales billboard.

>

> I didn't like that billboard. I think PETA does more harm

> to the cause than good, with their juvenile antics and

> " any publicity is good publicity " approach.

>

> But lets put things in perspective here.

>

> We're talking about 115,000 cute, cuddly little baby chicks

> *ground up* alive _each and every day_ .

> Think about it.

>

> Please forward this to your friends and relatives.

> Are you on Facebook/Twitter/Orkut/whatever ? Post a link

> to this story! Spread the word, people!

>

> Thanks,

> Ajay

>

> On 09/01/2009 06:34 PM, sunny_outdoors wrote:

> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/pets/detail?entry_id=46679 & tsp=1

>

[Guest guest]

, " rachel4veggies " <racheldonovan wrote:

>

> Thanks for the idea, Ajay. I posted this on facebook and will be sending it

out as an e-mail, too. Amazing how many comments have been posted on the

article ... more than 200 at SFGATE.COM. I was heartened that a lot of people

are writing how terribly wrong this is, that the adorable little chicks are

ground up, and they are asking how this can be stopped. (The easy answer is ...

stop eating eggs! But they have not reached that point yet.) A lot of the

people are wondering how we can take care of the male chicks so they don't have

to be killed like this; they really seem to care. So I think this article is a

really good thing to open people's eyes and get them thinking.> > Thanks,

> > Ajay

> >

 

How could we could this issue discussed on TV? I wonder if Oprah would venture

to touch this topic?

 

Sue Castle

[Guest guest]

Surely you jest.  " Save the Whales; Lose the Blubber: Go Vegetarian "   The main phrase catches attention; the secondary phrase gives its meaning clearly.  Saving the (human) whales means saving their lives, helping them prevent early death from heart disease (and cancer, diabetes, etc.; obesity is a health hazard).  As Newkirk stated, studies clearly show that vegetarians (and vegans) weigh less and have significantly reduced likelihood of death from those causes.  Just because some veg*ns eat too much dairy (or vegan junk food) and/or don't exercise doesn't negate the statistics.  And very few people are genetically programmed to be obese.

I've read a lot of opinions in this long thread, and I still don't understand the fat people's points of view regarding the billboard.  Discrimination against fat people is of course wrong, but that doesn't mean tough love is inappropriate.  When I " got busy " in life and became 40 pounds overweight (pretty darn fat, and as a long-time vegan), I WELCOMED the negative feedback from people....the tough love so to speak.  Yes, it sort of hurt my feelings a bit, but I never felt demeaned as a person, as I knew my weight was the result of (1) letting exercise slip on my priority list, and (2) not keeping my calorie intake in check.  I never complained that I don't have the skinny gene, and I never rationalized my situation and thought perhaps I ought to stay fat and be happy about it.  I worked HARD to regain fitness and to keep it.  It's a daily grind, a hard habit to maintain.  But my loved ones and I don't want me to unnecessarily die early (not to mention quality of life issues).

Should we make smokers feel good about their decision to smoke?  Should we encourage them to continue smoking instead of cessation?If not, then I don't understand why we should encourage over-eating and under-exercising.

--MarkOn Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:49 PM, rachel4veggies <racheldonovan wrote:

 

 

 

[snip]

 

About PETA's Save the Whales billboard ... I didn't understand the slogan " Save the Whales. " Going vegan to get skinny doesn't really do anything for the " save the whales " campaign since most people in the U.S. don't eat whales anyway. And if we're trying to save the people derisively called whales (for being overweight) by telling them to go vegan, then we're not saving the whales, we're eliminating them, right, because after they supposedly go vegan and go skinny, they won't be " whales " anymore. To me, " Save the Whales " (if it's whales meaning fat people) sounds like a campaign to encourage the rights of fat people to sun themselves on beaches and live as " whales " without insults or prejudice from anyone. That would be a campaign I'd support, but that's not what PETA intended. No matter how you look at it, there was a mismatch between the slogan and what PETA was trying to say.

 

[snip] 

 

Take care,

Rachel D.

San Francisco

[Guest guest]

On Sep 4, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Mark Kurowski wrote:

> When I " got busy " in life and became 40 pounds overweight (pretty

> darn fat, and as a long-time vegan), I WELCOMED the negative

> feedback from people....the tough love so to speak.

>

 

I think you're conflating two different questions. The two questions

are:

 

(1) Should society give " tough love " to overweight people to encourage

them to lose weight?

 

(2) Is it effective for an animal rights organization to give " tough

love " to overweight people to convince them of the animal rights

position?

 

You are arguing that because the answer to (1) is yes, then the answer

to (2) should also be yes.

 

But these are two very different questions with different goals. If

weight loss is the goal, then animal rights considerations are

irrelevant. If convincing people to support animal rights is the goal,

then the " tough love " approach to encouraging weight loss isn't

necessarily going to win people over, and may be similarly irrelevant.

 

Of course, it will work on some people, the few that see the deep

connections between our health, what we eat, and how that hurts the

animals. But that's going to be very few, and those people are already

natural allies. And if that argument drives away more people than it

convinces, then it's not effective.

[Guest guest]

Steve, you are as always a very logical guy!  But I wasn't arguing for or against the billboard, or its effectiveness, at all.I understood the billboard and wasn't personally offended (although, I immediately thought the image should have been a fat couple, not a fat woman).  Obviously a lot of fat people took offense, and that is what I don't really understand.  It wasn't fat-shaming at all, and people who call it that are seeing it where it doesn't exist, in my opinion.

Recall those anti-smoking commercials which show the glamor of smoking but then end with a guy in a wheelchair speaking through one of those throat devices.  If PETA would've done something like that, e.g., at the end showing lives cut short because of obesity (such as Israel " Iz " Kamakawiwo'ole (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ltAGuuru7Q )), then I don't think anyone would have called it fat-shaming.....it would've been recognized as a health-related PSA.

Clearly PETA should do some research, perhaps organized some focus groups, etc., before they release their ideas.  But in general, we fat people need to face reality.--MarkOn Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Steve Simitzis <steve wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sep 4, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Mark Kurowski wrote:

> When I " got busy " in life and became 40 pounds overweight (pretty

> darn fat, and as a long-time vegan), I WELCOMED the negative

> feedback from people....the tough love so to speak.

>

 

I think you're conflating two different questions. The two questions

are:

 

(1) Should society give " tough love " to overweight people to encourage

them to lose weight?

 

(2) Is it effective for an animal rights organization to give " tough

love " to overweight people to convince them of the animal rights

position?

 

You are arguing that because the answer to (1) is yes, then the answer

to (2) should also be yes.[snip]

[Guest guest]

Yes, Sue, I agree with you (and Ajay), this video needs to be broadcast widely.

It would be awesome if Oprah could cover this story. So many people have NO

IDEA that male chicks are harmed in the production of eggs. I also often hear

that people had no idea that male calves are harmed in the dairy industry. It's

interesting how little people know about the food they're eating, and how quick

they are to dismiss vegans as idiots who don't know what we're talking about.

Ironically, we're the ones who spend countless hours every year reading

non-fiction and educating ourselves about these issues; meanwhile, it has never

even occurred to most people I know to read one non-fiction book on the topic.

In my grad school class last week, a student mentioned the book " Omnivore's

Dilemma, " and I was the only one had even heard of it.

 

But I guess I can understand. I remember the debates I had with the first

vegetarian I ever met, a fellow grad school student from India, back in

1997-1999. I had never questioned the idea that animals were just there to be

used for whatever, like machines, so I couldn't understand why anyone would want

to be vegetarian. We used to debate well into the night, even though we were

both pretty uninformed; we had each been raised a certain way, and we were both

100% certain we were right. Anyway, when I look back on those times, and I see

how meat-eaters receive the facts and information I am trying to share ... I can

see how they just automatically assume they are right. It's easy for meat

eaters in a certain frame of mind to disregard the information we are sharing,

no matter how cogent the arguments or how convincing the evidence.

 

STILL ... people change over time (as I did), and if we can get

videos/pamphlets/etc out to people and catch them when they're receptive to new

ideas, we can create positive change. I have a video screen for leafletting,

maybe I can use the video of the chicks. I think it's very powerful footage.

 

-Rachel

 

 

 

 

, " castlesc " <castlesc wrote:

>

 

> > >

>

> How could we could this issue discussed on TV? I wonder if Oprah would

venture to touch this topic?

>

> Sue Castle

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Mark,

You're right, it was a bit of a jest ... but what I was getting at was how

confusing the message of the billboard is. It had these three disparate

components:

 

1) Mocking the real " Save the Whales " campaigns.

2) Calling fat people " whales " which is not nice. I can envision it being okay

if it's a grassroots movement by the fat people themselves, who are

self-identifying as whales (like the bizarre scenario I presented), but for

non-fat people to call fat people whales is another thing entirely.

3) Lose the blubber; go vegetarian. Well, that's okay, as a marketing ploy, but

for the 97% of people with no medical/hormone problem making them obese, losing

weight is all about the same thing ... get enough exercise and/or reduce your

calories. It doesn't matter if you're vegan or not. So on top of the SAVE THE

WHALES part that I don't like, the core message is specious.*

 

*If it just had something like " Go skinny, Go vegan, " without the SAVE THE

WHALES part, it would still be a specious message, but at least it would be

clear and coherent.

 

Tammy, I like what you said about doing activism and getting things done instead

of being armchair critics for PETA. Very good points! To clarify, my intent is

not to bash PETA but to provide constructive feedback and insight into why (I

think) this particular billboard was not effective. However, I do need to get

going and get some REAL WORK done today!

 

Take care,

-Rachel D.

San Francisco, CA

 

 

 

, Mark Kurowski <mark wrote:

>

> Surely you jest. " Save the Whales; Lose the Blubber: Go Vegetarian "

[Guest guest]

Sorry for the late reply, I just got back from the Eastern Sierras.

 

I am still a bit dismayed to see the continued PETA-bashing, and

not much constructive action.

 

There are 1289 members of this group. If each of us sent out that

link to 10 friends, with the request that they send it out to

10 of their friends, can you imagine the impact it would have?

 

Most of us are probably in no financial shape to put up a billboard;

but all of us together have more power than any billboard out there!

 

Ajay

 

PS: Here's the link, again:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/pets/detail?entry_id=46679 & tsp=1

 

 

On 09/05/2009 11:34 AM, rachel4veggies wrote:

>

>

> Yes, Sue, I agree with you (and Ajay), this video needs to be broadcast

> widely. It would be awesome if Oprah could cover this story. So many

> people have NO IDEA that male chicks are harmed in the production of

> eggs. I also often hear that people had no idea that male calves are

> harmed in the dairy industry.

> . . . . .